Christians and viewing "sex for enjoyment" as sinful

[xpower]

Why do so many Christians view sexual desire and sex for enjoyment as sinful/wrong?

 

[tdidymas]

Why do so many Christians view sexual desire and sex for enjoyment as sinful/wrong?

Don't know what the statistic is, so not sure what "so many" means. But I can say for sure the possible reasons behind this attitude:
1. Many Christians came out of a lifestyle of sexual perversion and have lots of trouble with it.
2. There are many liberals in the churches who commit sexual immorality and it is a bad influence on young and naive Christians. Since "so many" Christians are falling prey to the immorality of society, the "pendulum" swings against it.
3. There is a tradition that temptation itself is sinful, and they deem that being tempted is the "sinful nature" (which cannot be supported by scripture).
4. It may be that some of those people are simply trying to say that sexual immorality is wrong, but the communication gets muddled by either the speaker or the listener or both.
TD

 

[St_Worm2]

Why do so many Christians view sexual desire and sex for enjoyment as sinful/wrong?

Actually, I don't know any who do (and I know a LOT of Christians), well, unless you are referring to "sexual desire and sex for enjoyment" outside of marriage. If you are, the Bible is clear about the fact that extra-marital sex is sinful. Here is but one example. Did you ever wonder what the will of God is? Well:

1 Thessalonians 4
3 This is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality;
4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor,
5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God.
​

In Christ,
David

Hebrews 13
4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
.​

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Do you mean like viewing inappropriate content? Or literally people having sex outside of marriage? Both are wrong and a sin of course. Sex is meant to be within marriage. And as for inappropriate content....not to be part of anything.

Regardless these things are poison.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Why do so many Christians view sexual desire and sex for enjoyment as sinful/wrong?

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about people who believe that sex is only for procreation?

 

[xpower]

I mean why do christians view sex for reproduction as the only reason for sex. Then there are christians that think sexual desire itself is sinful(they think lust=sexual desire, It does not by the way) I have encountered this form of thinking more then a couple of times.

 

[hedrick]

Augustine.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I mean why do christians view sex for reproduction as the only reason for sex. Then there are christians that think sexual desire itself is sinful(they think lust=sexual desire, It does not by the way) I have encountered this form of thinking more then a couple of times.

Augustine and other Church Fathers who believed that sex itself was vile and defiling. In fact, I've heard, I think Justinian, apparently even said the only reason sex is even allowed for procreation is to create more virgins for the church.

 

[xpower]

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about people who believe that sex is only for procreation?

Yes, Just look at "The idea that masturbation wrong" thread in the liberal forum. There was someone there talking about how they struggled with there sexual desire itself, as if there natural sexual desire inherently wrong. Then there was the "masturbation is wrong because it is not procreation" type of thinking.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not an expert on patristics, so I'm basing this on secondary literature.

Before Augustine, the church valued virginity. My impression is that they didn't exactly think there was anything wrong with sex, but they believed that being free from the obligations of family and community allowed a higher form of life focused on God. (I note that "family values," as popularized by US Christians, in fact characterized pagan society. A good Roman pagan was characterized by commitment to his family, his city and has country -- though not necessarily his wife. Christians in the early church considered these obligations as something to be transcended.)

Augustine, however, seems to have seen sex as inherently opposed to Christian ideals of self-control, in part because sexual arousal wasn't under voluntary control.

Both led to valuing virginity and considering sexual relationships second-class, and to some extent justified only by the need for procreation. However Augustine and some after him had a darker version of this.

 

[xpower]

Augustine and other Church Fathers who believed that sex itself was vile and defiling. In fact, I've heard, I think Justinian, apparently even said the only reason sex is even allowed for procreation is to create more virgins for the church.

It also seems that some of this thinking has been inherited by protestant churches

 

[xpower]

I'm not an expert on patristics, so I'm basing this on secondary literature.

Before Augustine, the church valued virginity. My impression is that they didn't exactly think there was anything wrong with sex, but they believed that being free from the obligations of family and community allowed a higher form of life focused on God. (I note that "family values," as popularized by US Christians, in fact characterized pagan society. A good Roman pagan was characterized by commitment to his family, his city and has country -- though not necessarily his wife. Christians in the early church considered these obligations as something to be transcended.)

Augustine, however, seems to have seen sex as inherently opposed to Christian ideals of self-control, in part because sexual arousal wasn't under voluntary control.

Both led to valuing virginity and considering sexual relationships second-class, and to some extent justified only by the need for procreation. However Augustine and some after him had a darker version of this.

Tell me, what do you think of all this and the effects it on has had on Christians and Christianity?

 

[Silmarien]

The odd thing is that you can also get the fullblown sacramental approach to sexuality whereby it's considered too sacred to be explored outside of the bounds of marriage. I can well imagine that the idea that it's vile and demeaning is often lurking beneath the surface even there, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do so many Christians view sexual desire and sex for enjoyment as sinful/wrong?

...because they're confused by a myriad of voices from the Church who give conflicting view points as to what qualifies as fully 'sacred and holy,' even if done within the sole confines of marriage. Sad....but true.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[St_Worm2]

<staff edit>
If you can, please do so.

Thanks!

--David

Matthew 5
27 You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’
28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 So if your eye causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ​

 

[hedrick]

If you can, please do so.

Thanks!

--David

Matthew 5
27 You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’
28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 So if your eye causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ​

Lust is the same word that's translated "covet" when not involving sex. It means a desire for someone you have no right to. In this particular context it's referring specifically to desiring some who is married to someone else. Thus it doesn't apply to anything in Apex's list.

The central verses in Matthew 5 form a commentary on the 2nd table of the Law. In dealing with the other commandments, Jesus speaks of attitudes that would lead towards the literal offense. The wording makes it clear that this is the case for 5:28 as well. After all, if you look at an unmarried women with lust, whatever might be wrong with it, you wouldn't be committing adultery in your heart.

There are other passages that might apply to at least some of the things in the list (though not all). But incorrect exegesis of this passage has caused trouble for countless Christians, so it's worth objecting to.

 

[Apex]

If you can, please do so.

Thanks!

--David

Matthew 5
27 You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’
28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 So if your eye causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ​

Sure thing.

Starting in verse 21, we see Jesus contrast certain Mosaic laws along with their traditional interpretations to his own expanded interpretations. He does this to show how the fulfillment of these laws will not signify abolishment, but instead will represent the establishment of a new covenant in which God's law is internalized in a way that prevents it from being fully encapsulated in a list of rules. The objectives of our hearts become the new focus of righteous behavior.

Matthew 5:27-28

You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire [ἐπιθυμέω] her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The Greek word ἐπιθυμέω (epithumeō) in this context means to have sexual interest in someone and includes the lexical sense of craving to engage in an activity which is morally wrong. This parallels the concept of coveting. As such, many translations have chosen to use the more forceful word 'lust' instead of 'desire'. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency within many Christian communities to misconstrue or underemphasize the intentional and goal-oriented nature of such a desire.

For example, John MacArthur, in his commentary on Matthew, believes Jesus was condemning any action that leads to deliberate sexual excitement that does not solely focus on one's spouse. Talk about an impossible task! This interpretation is in error because it fails to accurately identify both the literary context and grammar of this passage. When both of these are considered they reveal that these verses express purpose and involves contemplating the steps to adultery in one's imagination. As such, the concern is with the internal motivation that leads to the actual act of adultery and not exclusively the look itself.

This interpretation is grammatically justifiable (which is why the ESV uses "lustful intent") and suggests that Jesus did not have mere sexual arousal or fantasy in mind, instead he was condemning those who wish to go beyond their mind's eye. This same conclusion is provided by Newman and Stine in their textual commentary on Matthew: "It is important to note that this verse does not just refer to noticing a woman as attractive, or even to a brief recognition that she is sexually appealing. It refers instead to actually contemplating having sex with her, that is, to having the intention of doing so." [1]

In such a case, one is considered guilty of adultery even if they never get to accomplish their goal. This is because their crime was premeditated. In a culture where young people generally have to arrange their marriages without their parents help, we might be in trouble if Jesus meant mere sexual attraction!

1. Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 137–138.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Sure thing.

Starting in verse 21, we see Jesus contrast certain Mosaic laws along with their traditional interpretations to his own expanded interpretations. He does this to show how the fulfillment of these laws will not signify abolishment, but instead will represent the establishment of a new covenant in which God's law is internalized in a way that prevents it from being fully encapsulated in a list of rules. The objectives of our hearts become the new focus of righteous behavior.

Matthew 5:27-28

You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire [ἐπιθυμέω] her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The Greek word ἐπιθυμέω (epithumeō) in this context means to have sexual interest in someone and includes the lexical sense of craving to engage in an activity which is morally wrong. This parallels the concept of coveting. As such, many translations have chosen to use the more forceful word 'lust' instead of 'desire'. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency within many Christian communities to misconstrue or underemphasize the intentional and goal-oriented nature of such a desire.

For example, John MacArthur, in his commentary on Matthew, believes Jesus was condemning any action that leads to deliberate sexual excitement that does not solely focus on one's spouse. Talk about an impossible task! This interpretation is in error because it fails to accurately identify both the literary context and grammar of this passage. When both of these are considered they reveal that these verses express purpose and involves contemplating the steps to adultery in one's imagination. As such, the concern is with the internal motivation that leads to the actual act of adultery and not exclusively the look itself.

This interpretation is grammatically justifiable (which is why the ESV uses "lustful intent") and suggests that Jesus did not have mere sexual arousal or fantasy in mind, instead he was condemning those who wish to go beyond their mind's eye. This same conclusion is provided by Newman and Stine in their textual commentary on Matthew: "It is important to note that this verse does not just refer to noticing a woman as attractive, or even to a brief recognition that she is sexually appealing. It refers instead to actually contemplating having sex with her, that is, to having the intention of doing so." [1]

In such a case, one is considered guilty of adultery even if they never get to accomplish their goal. This is because their crime was premeditated. In a culture where young people generally have to arrange their marriages without their parents help, we might be in trouble if Jesus meant mere sexual attraction!

1. Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 137–138.

Personally, I follow and agree with you here. Where you lose me is the issues of ethically made inappropriate contentography and any kind of non-marital sex. While I do not think that inappropriate contentea covers all forms of non-marital sex, I do think it definately covers sleeping around and inappropriate contentography (watching/enjoying, and producing), as they are not loving acts.

 

[Apex]

Personally, I follow and agree with you here. Where you lose me is the issues of ethically made inappropriate contentography and any kind of non-marital sex. While I do not think that inappropriate contentea covers all forms of non-marital sex, I do think it definately covers sleeping around and inappropriate contentography (watching/enjoying, and producing), as they are not loving acts.

Ethically-produced inappropriate contentography is a term I like to use to differentiate between inappropriate contentography that depicts non-consensual, illegal, and immoral forms of sex.

In fact, even most evangelicals make this distinction of ethical and unethical inappropriate content - but just not as broadly as me. I've meet several conservative Christian married couples who record themselves having sex or take pictures of each other naked. Let's not forget that this is inappropriate contentography too!

As for non-marital sex, love just means making wise and prudent sexual decisions. This obviously excludes adultery, having sex with random people, and includes ensuring all other risks are minimized. We do this with other activities in our lives. Take for instance driving in a car. We don't steal and drive other people's cars, we don't hitchhike, and we wear a seat belt to minimizes the risks if a crash happens.

The problem is people see sex as sacred and connect it solely with marriage. This idea is foreign to the Bible. It must be read into it.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The problem is people see sex as sacred and connect it solely with marriage. This idea is foreign to the Bible. It must be read into it.

What about the passage in 1 Corinthians 6 that does connect does sex to the two becoming one flesh and such?